^ 


ANTHROPOLOGY 


4»1^^^^^ 


A  CONTRTBTTTTONf  TO 
SAMOAN    SOMATOLOGY 


Memoirs  of  the  Bernice  Pauahi  Bishop  Museum 
Volume  VIII     \' umber  2 


WITT! 


l'.A\   \!'t  '  UU^ii^   '     .    i    \!'l-:i)iTI«  ;.\ 
PuBUCATioN  Number  i 


^^um^mmm^.^^mm^^m 


j''»^ 


t^Myss-vvii^'^iWA., 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/contributiontosaOOsullrich 


A  CONTRIBUTION  TO 


SAMOAN   SOMATOLOGY 

By  Louis  R./Sullivan 

BASED  ON  THE  FIELD  STUDIES  OF  E.   W.  GIFFORD  AND  W.   C.    MCKERN 


Memoirs  of  the  Bernice  Pauahi  Bishop  Museum 
Volume  VIII — Number  2 

WITH    PLATES    XXV-XXX 

BAYARD  DOMINICK  EXPEDITION 
Publication  Number  i 


honolulu,  hawaii 

Bishop  Museum  Press 

1921 


\ 


A  CONTRIBUTION  TO 
SAMOAN   SOMATOLOGY 


By  LOUIS  R.  SULLIVAN 


Based  on  the  field  studies  of  E.  W.  Gifford  and  W.  C.  McKern. 

INTRODUCTION 

THE  determination  of  the  physical  characters  and  of  the  racial  affinities  of  the 
Polynesians  is  an  essential  part  of   the  program  of  the   Bayard   Dominick 
Expedition.      Through    a   cooperative   arrangement   between    The    American 
Museum  of  Natural  History  and  the  Bishop  Museum  this  phase  of  the  work,  includ- 
ing detailed  plans  for  field  investigation  and  the  analysis  of  results,  has  been  placed 
in  my  hands.     To  insure  uniformity  of  technique  and  consequent  comparability  of 
results,  methods  of  taking  measurements  and  of  recording  descriptive  observations 
have  been  discussed  with  members  of  the  Expedition,  and  so  far  as  practicable 
actual  field  practice  has  been  given  imder  my  direction. 

The  present  paper  is  based  on  field  studies  made  by  E.  W.  Gifford  and 
W.  C.  McKern  while  en  route  to  the  Tonga  Islands.  These  men  spent  some  time 
with  me  in  Honolulu  gaining  familiarity  with  modern  anthropometric  methods, 
and  T  feel  the  greatest  confidence  in  the  care  and  accuracy  with  which  their  obser- 
vations have  been  recorded.  The  photographs  were  taken  by  Mr.  Giflford  and 
Mr.  McKern;  the  necessarv  mathematical  computation  including  calculation  of 
the  indices  were  nerformed  bv  niv  wife.  Bessie  P.  Sullivan,  and  checked  by  me; 
and  in  the  field  Mrs.  Delila  S.  Gifford  rendered  valuable  assistance.  The  Museum 
acknowledges  the  cordial  cooperation  of  Mr.  R.  W.  Tate,  Administrator  of  Western 
Samoa,  of  the  officers  of  the  Medical  Department  and  the  Department  of  Native 
Affairs,  and  of  the  Police. 

Although  the  series  is  too  small  to  permit  detailed  statistical  analyses  and 
inadequate  as  a  bases  for  generalization,  the  present  great  dearth  of  somatological 
data  from  the  Polynesian  culture  area  makes  this  material  a  welcome  and  important 
contribution. 

The  data  furnished  by  Giflford  and  McKern  consists  of  body,  head,  and  face 
measurements,  accompanied  by  descriptive  details  of  lOO  natives  of  the  Islands  of 
Savaii  and  Upolu  of  the  Samoan  group.  By  nativitv  the  persons  measured  rep- 
resent nearly  the  entire  coastal  region  of  these  two  islands.  Of  the  lOO  measure- 
ments 7  were  discarded  because  of  admitted  intermixtvire  with  European  and 
Melanesian  peoples  or  because  of  immaturitv.  Of  the  93  remaining  adults  who 
claimed  to  be  full  Samoan,  70  are  male  and  23  female.  It  is  possible  or  even 
probable  that  several  others  are  not  full  Samoan,  but  this  can  not  be  demonstrated 
stati'-ticallv.  Types  of  full-blood  and  half-blood  Samoans  are  shown  in  Plates 
xxv-xxx 

t3l 


sssi 

ANTHROP, 


770 


82  Memoirs  Bernice  P.  Bishop  Museum 

CHARACTERS  NOT  QUANTITATIVELY  MEASURABLE 

Skin  Color 

Skin  color  is  very  difficult  to  record  accurately  even  with  the  help  of  color 
standards,  all  of  which  are  admittedly  inadequate.  At  the  time  this  work  was 
undertaken,  von  Luschan's  "Hautfarben-Tafel,"  which  is  the  most  practical 
standard  in  use  at  present,  was  not  available.  Fritsch's  standard,  which  is  much 
less  permanent  and  entirely  impractical  for  field  work,  was  therefore  used,  and 
the  results  were  translated  as  nearly  as  possible  into  terms  of  von  Luschan's  scale. 
The  observations  were  made  in  two  places — an  unexposed  portion  of  the  skin, 
preferably  the  inner  side  of  the  upper  arm,  and  an  exposed  place,  uniformly  the 
cheek  just  below  the  zyomatic  arches.  For  the  unexposed  skin  the  color  ranges 
from  number  lo  to  number  24  of  von  Luschan's  scale,  numbers  14,  15,  and  16 
predominate.  In  the  women  the  shades  run  about  one  degree  lighter  and  num- 
bers 13,  14,  and  15  predominate.  For  the  exposed  skin  of  the  men  numbers  15, 
16.  17,  or  18  predominate.  Again,  the  color  of  the  women  runs  about  one  shade 
lighter,  in  most  being  number  14,  15,  or  16.  In  terms  of  black  and  white  the  color 
ranges  from  very  light  flesh  yellow  to  deep  brown.  A  slightly  yellowish  medium 
brown  predominates. 

Hair 

For  hair  form  the  following  choice  of  adjectives  was  made:  straight,  low 
waves,  deep  waves,  curly,  frizzly,  woolly.  It  was  agreed  not  to  judge  by  the  general 
eflfect,  but  to  examine  individual  hairs.  In  addition  hair  samples  were  collected 
and  the  results  checked  up  in  the  laboratorv.  The  conception  of  the  various  terms 
agreed  upon  correspond  to  the  following  letters  in  Martin's  Schema  der  Haarform, 
("Lehrbuch  der  Anthropologic,"  fig.  52,  page  189):  straight=a,  b,  c;  low 
waves=d;  deep  waves=e;  curly==f;  frizzly  no  equal,  but  refers  to  the  fine 
deep  waves  so  common  where  intermixture  with  woolly-haired  people  has  taken 
place :  woolly  =  g,  h,  i ;  tufted  or  spiral  =  k,  1. 

•  The  chief  diflferences  are  due  to  the  fact  that  our  classification  was  not  so 
minute  as  Martin's  and  that  we  distinguished  between  fine  straight  hair  and  wavy 
hair.     The  results  are  shown  in  Table  I. 

The  choice  of  terms  for  hair  color  was  black,  dark  brown,  reddish  brown, 
light  brown,  blond,  golden,  red,  gray.  Attention  was  given  to  the  prevalence  of 
customs  of  artificial  bleaching  The  results  show  that  the  practice  of  bleaching 
the  hair  with  lime  is  still  in  vogue  to  some  extent.  The  details  are  given  in  Table  IT. 

I4I 


Sullivan — Samoan  Somatology 


83 


TABLE    I-       HAIR  FORM 

Male  Female 

Number      Per  Number  Per 

persons      cent  persons  cent 

Straight 38        55.1  11  47.8 

Low  waves 19        27.5  9  39.1 

Deep  waves  7         10.1  2  8.8 

Curly  4          5.8  0  .0 

Frizzly 1           1.4  1  4.3 

Woolly 0            .0  0  .0 

Total 69  23 


TABLE    II.      HAIR    COLOR 

Male  Female 

Number    Per         Number       Per 
persons      cent       persons       cent 

Black 64  91.4  13  56.9 

Dark 

brown....  3(2)^  4.3(2.8)  2(4)  8.8(17.4) 
Reddi.sh 

brown....   0  .0  0(3)  .0(13.0) 
Light 

brown....  0(1)  .0(1.4)  0(1)  .0(  4.3) 

Blond 0  .0  0  .0 

Golden 0  .0  0  .0 

Red 0  .0  0  .0 

Gray  .0  .0  .0 

Total 70  23 

The  amount  and  distribution  of  the  beard  was  carefully  noted.  The  choice 
of  terminology  was :  none,  scant,  medium,  heavy.  The  beard  was  considered  as 
divided  into  three  parts:  upper  cheek  (from  the  hair  line  to  an  imaginary  line 
bisecting  the  angle  of  the  mandible),  lower  cheek  (from  the  point  where  the  imagi- 
nary line  bisects  the  angle  of  the  mandible  to  a  point  immediately  below  the  corner 
of  the  mouth),  and  the  chin.    The  observations  resulted  as  follows: 


TABLE  III.    BEARD  :    UPPER  CHEEK- 


None 7 

Scant    32 

Medium  22 

Heavy 8 


-MALES  ONLY. 

Number     Per 
persons 


cent 
10.1 
46.3 
31.9 
11.5 


Total 69 

TABLE  IV.    BEARD  :    LOWER  CHEEK — MALES  ONLY. 

Number      Per 
persons     cent 

None    10         14.5 

Scant   30        43.3 

Medium  16        23.2 

Heavy    13         18.8 

Total 69 

TABLE   V.     beard:     chin — MALES    ONLY. 


Number 
persons 

None 00 

Scant   16 

Medium  19 

Heavy 34 

Total 69 


Per 
cent 
.0 
23.2 
27.5 
49.2 


TABLE  VI.     HAIR  ON   CHEST — MALES   ONLY. 

Number  Per 

persons  cent 

None 40  59.7 

Scant    15  22.3 

Medium  10  14.9 

Heavy    2  3.0 

Total 67 

TABLE   VII.       HAIR    ON    FOREARM — MALES    ONLY 

Number  Per 

persons  cent 

None    2  3.0 

Scant    13  19.1 

Mediiun  24  35.3 

Heavy    29  42.6 

Total 68 

TABLE  VIII.     HAIR   ON    LEGS — MALES   ONLY. 

Number     Per 
persons     cent 

None 0  .0 

Scant    5  7.2 

Medium  29        42.0 

Heavy    35         50.7 


Total 


69 


*  The  figures  in  parentheses  show  the  numbers  and  averages  for  lime-bleached  hair. 

[5] 


84 


Memoirs  Bernice  P.  Bishop  Museum 


Eye 

The  following  descriptive  terms  were  used  for  eye  color :  black,  dark  brown, 
light  brown,  blue,  gray,  blue-brown,  gray-brown.  Black  was  used  for  the  very 
heavily  pigmented  brown  eye  which  on  casual  examination  appears  black.  Blue- 
brown  and  gray-brown  were  employed  to  designate  those  very  light  brown  eyes 
which  are  often  termed  green  or  hazel.  The  basic  color  is  either  a  blue  or  a  gray 
with  a  discontinuous  distribution  of  brown  pigment  either  radiating  from  around 
the  pupil  or  distributed  in  specks  throughout  the  iris. 

TABLE  IX.      EYE  COLOR. 

Male  Female 

Number      Per       Number      Per 
persons      cent        persons     cent 

Black  2  2.9  3  13.0 

Dark  brown  67  97.1  19  82.6 

Light  brown  0  .0  1  4.3 

Blue  0  .0  0  .0 

Gray    0  .0  0  .0 

Blue-brown    0  .0  0  .0 

Gray-brown   0  .0  0  .0 

Total  69  2Z 


The  terminology  used  to  designate  the  condition  of  the  conjunctiva  was 
clear,  speckled,  yellow,  dull,  blood-shot.  It  was  found,  however,  that  with  the 
exception  of  "clear"  all  the  other  terms  might  sometimes  be  applied  to  a  single  eye. 
For  this  reason  the  data  have  been  tabulated  under  two  heads  only,  "clear,"  and 
"unclear,"  unclear  including  speckled,  yellow,  and  dull  muddy  eyes.  "Blood-shot" 
was  not  represented. 


TABLE  X.     CONDITION  OF  CONJUNCTIVA 

Male  Female 

Number      Per  Number      Per 

persons      cent  persons      cent 

Clear  16        23.5  10        45.4 

Unclear  52        76.5  12        54.6 

Total  68  22 


TABLE     XI.      THE     MONGOLOID     OR  EPICANTHIC 
EYE    FOLD 

Male  Female 

Number      Per  Number      Per 

persons      cent  persons      cent 

Absent 47        68.1  11        47.8 

Trace 19        27.5  10        43.4 

Medium    2          2.8  2          8.8 

Marked  1           1.4  0            .0 

Total  69  23 


Nose 

The  elevation  of  the  nasal  bridge  from  the  face  was  estimated  in  terms  of 
low,  medium  or  high.  The  European  nose  was  the  conception  of  high.  As  a  rule 
the  contour  of  the  nostrils  in  man  is  nearly  oval.  The  method  adopted  in  describ- 
ing the  nostrils  is  based  on  an  imaginary  long  axis  through  the  oval  and  its  orien- 
tation in  relation  to  the  facial  plane.  In  most  Europeans  the  long  axes  of  the  nos- 
trils point  directly  forward  in  an  antero-posterior  direction  from  the  facial  plane 

[6] 


Stillivan — Sam oan  Somatology 


85 


(fig.  1,  A).  In  negroes  the  long  axis  runs  parallel  to  the  plane  of  the  face  in  a 
transverse  direction  (fig.  i,  C).  In  mongoloid  peoples  the  axes  point  obliquely 
forward  (fig.  i,  B). 


A    ^  B  C 

FIGURE  I.     Types  of  nostrils:    A,  antero-posterior ;  B,  oblique;  C,  transverse. 


TABLE   XII.     NASAL   BRIDGE 

Male  Female 

Number      Per  Number  Per 

persons      cent  persons  cent 

Low  15        21.4  13  56.9 

Medium 45        64.3  9  39.1 

High 10        14.3  1  4.3 

Total  70  23 


TABLE  XIII.      DIRECTION   OF  THE  LONG  AXIS  OP 
THE  NOSTRILS 

Male  Female 

Number       Per  Number     Per 

persons      cent  persons      cent 

Antero-posterior..       2          2.9  0            .0 

Oblique  39        57.3  9        39.1 

Transverse  27        39.7  14        60.9 

Total  69  23 


Ear 

The  terminology  used  for  the  ear  lobe  was:    none,  small  separate,  small 
attached,  large  separate,  large  attached.     The  distribution  follows: 


TABLE   XIV. 

EAR   LOBE 

Male 

Female 

Number 

Per 

Number      Per 

persons 

cent 

persons      cent 

None  

..        7 

10.4 

0            .0 

Small  separate  . 

...    26 

38.8 

6        26.1 

Small  attached  . 

..    23 

34.3 

13        56.5 

Large  separate  . 

...     10 

14.9 

3        13.0 

Large  attached  . 

1 

1.4 

1          4.3 

Total  

...    67 

23 

The  extent  of  the  roll  of  the  helix  of  the  ear  was  noted.  The  helix  was 
roughly  divided  into  three  parts  designated  as  the  first-third,  the  second-third,  and 
the  total  helix.  The  first-third  refers  to  that  portion  of  the  helix  terminating  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  superaurale,  the  second-third  extends  from  this  point  to  a  point 
just  below  the  ix)sition  of  the  tuberculare. 

[7] 


86 


Memoirs  Bernice  P.  Bishop  Museum 


TABLE  XV.   ROLL  OF  THE  HELIX 


Male 


Female 


Number      Per       Number      Per 


persons 

Helix  flat  0 

Helix  rolled  thru 
first-third    13 

Helix  rolled  thru 
second-third  -..     30 

Helix  rolled  thru 
entire  24 


Total 


67 


cent 
.0 

persons 

0  . 

cent 
.0 

19.4 

11 

47.8 

44.7 

7 

30.4 

35.8 

5 

21.7 

TABLE    XVL     DARWIN  S    TUBERCLE 


Male 

Number      Per 
persons       cent 

Absent  53        81.5 

Present   12         18.4 

Total  65 


23 

(Only  well-marked  tubercles  were  recorded.) 


Female 


Number 
persons 

18 

5 

23 


Per 

cent 

78.2 
21.7 


Teeth 

The  upper  incisor  teeth  were  examined  for  the  purpose  of  noting  the  pres- 
ence or  absence  of  that  type  which  Hrdhcka  has  aptly  described  as  "shovel-shaped." 
The  peculiarity  referred  to  is  located  on  the  lingual  surface  of  the  upper  incisor 
teeth.  An  upgrowth  from  the  cingulum  branches  near  the  gingival  border  and 
extends  along  the  lateral  and  mesial  border  of  the  tooth,  forming  a  rim  and  leaving 
a  concavity  or  depression  in  the  lingual  surface.  The  lingual  surface  of  such  a 
tooth  presents  an  appearance  not  vmlike  that  of  a  coal  shovel.  Examples  of  this 
type  of  tooth  are  most  often  found  in  American  Indians,  Malays,  Chinese,  Japanese, 
Koreans,  and  other  Mongoloid  types. 

TABLE    XVn.     SHOVEL-SHAPED    UPPER    INCISORS 


MESIAL   INCISORS 

Male  Female 

Number      Per 
persons      cent 

Absent 45        68.2 

Trace 17        25.7 

Marked  4  6.0 

Total  66  21 


Number 

Per 

persons 

cent 

16 

76.2 

3 

14.3 

2 

9.5 

LATERAL    INCISORS 

Male 
Number       Per 
persons      cent 

Absent  33         51.5 

Trace 22        34.3 

Marked  9         14.1 

Total  64 


Female 

Number 

Per 

persons 

cent 

12 

57.1 

5 

23.8 

4 

19.0 

21 


TABLE  XVIII.      SLOPE  OF  THE  FOREHEAD 

Male  Female 

Number         Per  Number 

persons         cent  persons 

Vertical  29        40.0         18 

Moderate  slope....    41        58.5  3 

Low    1  1.5  0 

Total  71  21 


Per 
cent 

85.7 

14.3 

0 


TABLE    XIX.     DEVELOPMENT    OF  THE    GLABELLA 

Male  Female 

Number      Per  Number      Per 

persons      cent  persons      cent 

Smooth  20        29.4  23       100.0 

Medium    38        55.8  0            .0 

Prominent    10         14.7  0             .0 

Total  68  23 


[8] 


Sullivan — Samoan  Somatology 


87 


TABLE   XX.     THICKNESS  OF  THE   LIPS 

Male  Female 

Number      Per  Number      Per 

persons      cent  persons      cent 

Thin 0            .0  1          4.3 

Medium 65        92.8  21        91.4 

Thick 5          7.1  1          4.3 

Total  70  23 


TABLE  XXI.  PROCXATHISM — UPPER  FACIAL 
PROFILE 

Male  Female 

Number      Per  Number      Per 

persons      cent  persons      cent 

None  38        56.7  16        69.6 

Slight    16        23.8  3        13.0 

Medium    12         17.8  4         17.4 

Marked  1           1.4  0            .0 

Total  67  23 


ABSOLUTE  MEASUREMENTS 


TABLE    XXII 
STATURE    (without   SHOES) 


Number 


Centimeters 

i\  UlUUCI 

male 

155 

.... 

6 

.... 

7 

8 

.... 

9 

.... 

160 

1 

2 

4 

3 

0 

4 

1 

165 

3 

6 

6 

7 

5 

8 

1 

9 

6 

170 

1 

1 

4 

2 

6 

3 

6 

4 

4 

175 

4 

6 

6 

7 

2 

8 

3 

9 

2 

180 

2 

1 

0 

2 

2 

3 

0 

4 

1 

Male 

Total  

69 

Average    .... 

171.7 

S.D 

5.25 

E 

0.63 

\'.  in  per 

cent       3.05 

Number 
female 

2 
2 
1 
2 
1 

4 
1 
5 
1 
0 

0 
2 
0 
0 
0 

1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

1 


Female 
23 

161.2 
4.92 
1.02 
3.05 


table  xxiii 

maximum  head  length 

(glabella-opisthocranium) 

,,-„■_  .  Number  Number 

Millimeters  ^^j^  j^^^,^ 

173  ....  1 

4  1  1 


0 
0 
0 
3 
1 


175 

0 

6 

0 

7 

1 

8 

0 

9 

0 

180 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

2 

4 

2 

185 

5 

6 

4 

7 

3 

8 

3 

9 

5 

190 

5- 

1 

4 

2 

3 

3 

7 

4 

4 

195 

4 

6 

5 

7 

1 

8 

3 

9 

1 

200 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

3 

1 

4 

0 

205 

1 

Male 

Total  

68 

.•\verage    .... 

190.6 

S.D 

5.69 

E 

69 

V.  in  per 

cent       2.98 

[9] 

0 
2 
4 
2 
2 

0 
2 
0 
2 
0 

1 
0 
1 
0 
0 


Female 
23 

183.0 
5.22 
1.08 
2.85 


table   XXIV 
MAXIMUM    HEAD    WIDTH 


Millimeters 

140 
1 
2 
3 
4 

145 
6 
7 
8 
9 

150 
1 
2 
3 
4 

155 
6 
7 
8 
9 

160 
1 
2 
3 

4 

165 
6 
7 
8 
9 


Male 

Total  68 

Average    154.8 

S.D 4.46 

E 54 

V.  in  per  cent  ..     2.88 


Number 

Number 

male 

female 

.... 

1 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

4 

1 

5 

3 

0 

2 

2 

4 

2 

2 

1 

2 

0 

7 

1 

5 

1 

8 

1 

5 

0 

9 

1 

5 

3 

.... 

3 

3 

.... 

1 

.... 

0 



0 

.... 

1 

1 

.... 

Female 
23 

148.1 
3.87 
.80 
2.61 


88 


Memoirs  Bernicc  P.  Bishop  Museum 


TABLE    XXV 

MINIMUM    FRONTAL 

Millimeters 

Number 
male 

90 

1 

.    1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

2 

4 

1 

95 

2 

6 

1 

7 

1 

8 

1 

9 

3 

100 

5 

1 

5 

2 

5 

3 

2 

4 

4 

— 

105 

3 

6 

6 

7 

7     . 

8 

4 

9 

1 

— 

110 

3 

11 

4 

12 

0 

13 

1 

14 

2 

lis 

0 

16 

0 

17 

0 

18 

1 

19 

0 

Number 
female 


Male 

Total    68 

Average    103.4 

S.D 5.98 

E 72 

V.  in  per  cent       5.78 


2 
1 
2 
1 
1 

3 
1 
2 
0 
3 

3 
1 
2 
1 
0 


Female 
23 

101.5 
3.96 
.82 
3.90 


t.kcle  xxvi 

maximum  face  width 

(bizvgomatic  diameter) 


Millimeters 

iNumoer 
male 

130 

1 

2 

3 

4 

.... 

135 

0 

6 

1 

7 

1 

8 

5 

9 

2 

140 

3 

1 

4 

2 

2 

3 

5 

4 

6 

145 

7 

6 

5 

7 

4 

8 

6 

9 

0 

150 

3 

1 

5 

2 

1 

3 

3 

4 

1 

155 

0 

6 

3 

7 

0 

8 

1 

9 

1 

Male 

Total 

69 

Average    .... 

145.9 

S.D 

5.23 

E 

63 

Y.  in  per 

cent       3.59 

Number 
female 

0 
1 
3 
3 
1 

1 
4 
1 
3 
1 

2 
0 
0 
2 
0 


Female 
23 

136.5 
3.79 
.79 
2.77 


TABLE    XXVII 
BIGONIAL    DIAMETER 


Millimeters 

iNumoer 
male 

AuniDcr 
female 

89 

.... 

1 

90 

0 

1 

0 

2 

"i 

1 

3 

0 

0 

4 

1 

1 

95 

0 

1 

6 

3 

1 

7 

1 

3 

8 

5 

0 

9 

4 

2 

100 

5 

5 

1 

4 

2 

2 

2 

2  ■ 

3 

4 

1 

4 

2 

1 

105 

4 

2 

6 

8 

7 

4 

8 

4 

9 

3 

.... 

110 

4 

11 

0 

12 

3 

13 

0 

14 

1 

.... 

115 

1 

16 

1 

17 

1 

18 

0 

19 

0 

.... 

120 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

3 

1 

4 

0 

.... 

.Male 

Female 

Total  

67 

23 

Average    .— 

104.6 

99.0 

S.D 

5.13 

3.93 

E 

62 

.82 

V.  in  per 

cent       4.90 

3.96 

[lO] 


Sullivan — Samoan  Somatology 


89 


tadle  xxviii.    anatomical  face  height 
(nasion  to  gnathion) 


,,.,,.      .              Number 
Millimeters            „,^,^ 

Number 
female 

110 

1 

11 

1 

12 

0 

13 

0 

14 

... 

1 

115 

1 

1 

16 

0 

3 

17 

0 

0 

18 

1 

2 

19 

0 

1 

120 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

0 

4 

4 

1 

125 

3 

6 

5 

7 

2 

8 

1 

9 

4 

130 

2 

0 

1 

5 

0 

2 

3 

0 

3 

5 

1 

4 

3 

0 

135 

5 

1 

6 

6 

7 

2 

8 

1 

9 

p 

.... 

140 

2 

1 

2 

.... 

2 

2 

3 

2 

4 

0 

145 

1 

Male 

Female 

Total  

69 

23 

Average    

131.1 

121.1 

S.D 

6.56 
.79 

6.41 

E. 

1.33 

V.  in  per  cent  

5.00 

5.30 

TABLE  XXIX.     1 

MOSE  HEIGHT 

(nasion 

to  subnasale) 

Number 

Number 

limeters 

male 

female 

45 

1 

6 

0 

7 

0 

8 

1 

9 

1 

50 

0 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

4 

4 

1 

2 

55 

3 

2 

6 

2 

2 

7 

4 

0 

8. 

10 

0 

9 

7 

2 

60 

11 

1 

1 

10 

1 

2 

5 

2 

3 
4 

65 
6 
7 
8 
9 


2 
2 

3 
2 
0 
2 
1 


Male  Female 

Total 69  23 

Average    59.8  54.3 

S.D 3.64  4.53 

E 43  .94 

V.  in  per  cent  6.09  8.34 


[  11  1 


90 


Memoirs  Bernice  P.  Bishop  Museum 


TABLE   XXX 
NASAL  WIDTH    (MAXIMUM  DISTAl) 

i..;„;^„j^„  Number  Number 

Millimeters  ^^^^  j^^^,^ 

34  ....  1 


35 
6 
7 
8 
9 

40 
1 
2 
3 

4 

45 
6 
7 
8 
9 

50 


1 
1 

5 
6 
9 
12 
9 

9 
7 
3 
3 
3 


Male 

Total  69 

Average   43.8 

S.D 2.59 

E 31 

V.  in  per  cent       5.91 


0 
0 
0 

1 

0 

9 
4 
3 
0 
1 

3 
1 


Female 

23 
41.2 

2.56 
.90 

6.21 


TARLE    XXXI 
EAR    HEIGHT    (maximum    TOT.VL) 

Number 
male 

0 


Millimeters 


55 
6 
7 
8 
9 

60 
1 
2 
3 

4 

65 
6 
7 
8 
9 

70 
1 
2 
3 

4 


1 
1 
1 
0 

2 
3 

5 
6 

5 

9 

5 
5 
2 
7 

8 
2 
3 
2 
0 


75  0 

6  2 

Male 

Total  69 

Average    66.1 

S.D 4.23 

E 50 

V.  in  per  cent       6.39 


Number 
female 

1 
1 
0 

1 

7 

3 
1 
1 
0 
3 

2 
1 
2 


Female 

23 

61.2 

3.33 

.69 

5.44 


TABLE    XXXII 
EAR    WIDTH    (maximum) 


Millimeters 

Number 
male 

Number 
female 

29 

1 

.... 

30 

3 

1 

1 

5 

3 

2 

0 

5 

3 

8 

5 

4 

13 

1 

35 

8 

4 

6 

9 

1 

7 

7 

1 

8 

6 

1 

9 

1 

1 

40 

5 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

4 

.... 

.... 

Male 

Female 

Total  

68 

23 

.A.verage    .... 

35.2 

33.6 

S.D 

2.76 

2.30 

E 

33 

.48 

V.  in  per 

cent       7.84 

6.84 

[12] 


Sullivan — Sam  oan  Som at ology 


91 


INDICES  AND  PROPORTIONS 
Head  Indices 


TABLE  XXXIII 
CEPHALIC     OR     LENGTH-BREADTH     INDEX 

Index 
74  2 


Number 
male 


Number 
female 


75 
6 
7 
8 
9 

80 

1 
2 
3 

4 

85 
6 
7 
8 
9 


2 
1 

6 

7 
0 

11 

7 
9 

5 
4 

5 
3 
4 
0 
2 


0 
3 

1 

4 
0 


3 

4 
4 
2 

1 
1 


Male 

Total  68 

Average    81.3 

S.D 3.53 

E .42 

V.  in  per  cent  4.34 


Female 

23 
80.8 

2.98 
.62 

3.68 


TABLE  XXXIV 


TRANSVERSE    FRONTO-PARIETAL    INDEX 

(  Minimum  frontal  x  100  ) 


(   Maximum  head 

width   ) 

Number 

Number 

Index 

male 

female 

55 

6 

7 

i 

■*— 

8 

1 

.... 

9 

1 

.... 

60 

3 

1 

0 

2 

1 

3 

5 

i' 

4 

6 

0 

65 

5 

2 

6 

6 

4 

7 

7 

2 

8 

9 

3 

9 

11 

2 

70 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

4 

2 

2 

Male  Female 

Total  68  23 

Average    66.8  68.8 

S.D 3.30  3.12 

E 40  .65 

V.  in  per  cent  4.94  4.54 


[13] 


92 


Memoirs  Bernice  P.  Bishop  Museum 


Face  Indices 


TABLE   XXXV 
CEPHALO-FACIAL   INDEX 

(  maximum  face  width  x  ICK)  ) 


( 


maximum  head 

Number 

Index 

male 

85 

0 

6 

1 

7 

0 

8 

2 

9 

1 

90 

1 

1 

4 

2 

8 

3 

10 

4 

12 

95 

8 

6 

7 

7 

7 

8 

3 

9 

2 

100 

1 

1 

0 

2 

1 

3 

4 

.... 

width 


) 


Male 

Total  68 

Average    94.2 

S.D 2.84 

E 34 

V.  in  per  cent       3.01 


Number 
female 


1 

2 


4 
2 

5 
2 
2 

1 
2 
1 
1 
0 


Female 

23 
92.4 
2.63 

.54 
2.84 


TABLE   XXXVI 
,TUGO-M.A.NDIBULAR    INDEX 

(  bigonial  diameter  x  100  ) 


TABLE    XXXVII 
JUGO-FRONTAL   INDEX 

(minimum  frontal  diameterxlOO) 


(     maximum  face  width 

) 

(        maximum    face    width        ) 

Number            Number 

Number 

Number 

Index 

male                female 

Index 

male 

female 

60 

60 

1 

1 

2 

1 

.... 

2 

"i 

3 

0 

.... 

3 

1 

4 

1 

4 

2 

.... 

65 

2 

65 

1 

6 

1 

6 

3 

.... 

7 

3 

2 

7 

2 

.... 

8 

7 

4 

8 

6 

9 

4 

1 

9 

6 

i 

70 

3 

0 

70 

7 

3 

1 

8 

2 

1 

9 

1 

2 

11 

1 

2 

3 

0 

3 

7 

2 

3 

10 

3 

4 

4 

0 

4 

8 

S 

75 

5 

5 

75 

~5 

3 

6 

3 

5 

6 

1 

2 

7 

2 

0 

7 

0 

0 

8 

■    2 

1 

8 

2 

2 

9 

2 

0 

9 

1 

0 

80 

0 

80 

2 

1 

0 

1 

.... 

0 

2 

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

.... 

.... 

4 

.... 

4 

.... 

.... 

Male 

•"emale 

Male 

Female 

Total  

67 

2Z 

Total  

68 

23 

Average   .... 

71.7 

72.5 

.\verage    .... 

70.9 

74.5 

S.D. 

3.84 

3.50 
.73 

S.D 

3.55 

3.34 

E 

46 

E 

43 

.69 

V.  in  per 

cent       5.42 

4.83 

V.  in  per 

cent       5.01 

4.49 

[  14] 


Sullivan — Samoan  Somatology 


93 


TABLB    XXXVIII 

table  XXXIX 

ANATOMICAL    FACIAL    INDEX           | 

NASAL    INDEX 

(garson) 

(   anatomical  face  height  x  lOO  ) 

Index 

Number 
male 

(         maximum  face  width         ) 

60 

0 

T„,<o                Number 
^"^^'^                male 

Number 
female 

1 
2 

1 

0 

79                      1 

.... 

3 

1 

— 

4 

0 

80                     1 

1 



1                     0 

1 

65 

2 

2                     1 

0 

6 

3 

3                  0 

3 

7 

3 

4                  6 

2 

8 

3 

—                — 

— 

9 

3 

85                   3 

1 

— . 

6                   4 

5 

70 

5 

7                   9 

2 

1 

5 

8                   5 

0 

2 

9 

9                   3 

0 

3 

4 

— 

— 

4 

4 

90                   9 

1 

.      , 

1                   3 

1 

75 

4 

2                   3 

0 

6 

1 

3                   3 

0 

7 

3 

4                   5 

3 

8 

3 

— 

9 

3 

95                   4 

1 



6                   3 

1 

80 

4 

7                   0 

0 

1 

2 

8                   2 

1 

2 

1 

9                   1 

0 

3 

4 

1 
1 

100                   0 

1                   0 

85 

1 

2                   1 

6 

0 

3                   0 

7 

0 

4                   1 

8 
9 

0 
1 

Male 

Female 

1 

Total  68 

23 

90 

1 
2 
3 
4 

Average   89.9 

89.8 

"" 

S.D 4.87 

5.03 

.... 

E 59 

1.05 

..... 

V.  in  per  cent       5.42 

5.60 

^^ 

95 

.... 

6 

.... 

7 

.... 

8 

.... 

9 

.... 

100 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Male 

Total  .... 

69 

Average 

73.6 

S.D.  .. 

5.86 

E 

70 

V.  in 

jer  cent       7.96 

[JS] 

Number 
female 


0 
2 
0 
3 
0 

1 
0 
1 
2 
1 

0 
3 
1 
2 
1 

2 
0 
1 
1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

1 


Female 

23 

76.3 
7.99 
1.66 

10.47 


TABLE    XL 
PHYSIOGNOMIC    EAR    INDEX 


Index 


Number 
male 


Number 
female 


45 

0 

0 

6 

2 

0 

7 

0 

1 

8 

5 

0 

9 

9 

0 

50 

2 

1 

1 

6 

0 

2 

6 

6 

3 

5 

2 

4 

6 

4 

55 

6 

> 

6 

4 

ii 

7 

6 

2 

8 

7 

2 

9 

1 

1 



— ~ 

60 

1 

C 

1 

1 

G 

2 

1 

1 

3 

0 

4 

.... 

0 

65 

0 

6 

0 

7 

0 

8 

0 

9 

.... 

0 

70 

1 

1 

.... 

.... 

2 

3 

.... 

4 

.... 

.... 

Male 

Female 

Total  

68 

23 

.'\verage    .... 

53.3 

54.9 

S.D 

3.79 
.46 

4.53 

E 

.94 

V.  in  per 

cent 

7.11 

8.25 

94 


Memoirs  Bernice  P.  Bishop  Museum 


SUMMARY  OF  SOMATOLOGICAL  CHARACTERS  OF  SAMOANS 
Table  XLI.    Characters  Not  Quantitatively  Measurable 


CHARACTER 

Skin  color 
(Unexposed  part) 

Hair  form 


MALE 


Hair  color 


FEMALE 


Medium  yellowish-brown  Medium  yellowish  brown 

von  Luschan's  Nos.  14, 15, 16.       von  Luschan's  Nos.  13,  14,  15. 


Straight  55.1% 
Low  waves  27.5% 


Straight  47.8% 
Low  waves  39.1% 


Black  91.4 


Black  56.9,  dark  brown  8.8 
34.7%  bleached 


Amount  of  beard : 
Upper  cheek 
Lower  cheek 
Chin 


Scant  46.3,  medium  31.9 
Scant  43.3,  medium  23.2 
Medium  27.5,  heavy  49.2 


Amount  of  hair : 
Chest 
Forearm 
Leg 


Eye  color 


Conjunctiva 


Epicanthic  eye  fold 


None  59.7,  scant  22.3 
Medium  35.3,  heavy  42.6 
Medium  42.0,  heavy  50.7 


Dark  brown  97. 1 


Black  13.0,  dark  brown  82.6 


Speckled,  yellowish  76.5 


Speckled,  yellowish  54.6 


Absent  68.1,  trace  27.5 


Absent  47.8,  trace  43.4 


Nasal  bridge 

Medium  height  64.3 

Low  56.9,  medium  39.1 

Long  axes  of  nostrils 

Oblique  57.3,  transverse  39.7 

Oblique  39.1,  transverse  60.9 

Slope  of  forehead 

Vertical  40.0 
Moderate  slope  58.5 

Vertical  85.7 

Development  of  glabella 

Medium  55.8 

Smooth  100.0 

Lips :    thickness 

Medium  92.8 

Medium  91.4 

Prognathism 

None  56.7,  slight  23.8 

None  69.6,  slight  13.0 

Ear-lobe 

Small :  separate  38.8, 
Attached  34.3 

Small:  separate  26.1, 
Attached  56.5 

Helix  rolled 

Two-thirds  44.7 
Total  35.8 

First-third  47.8 
Two-thirds  30.4 

Shovel-shaped  incisor 

Tooth:  Upper mesials 

Upper  laterals 

Absent  68.2,  trace  25.7 
Absent  51.5,  trace  34.3 

Absent  76.2,  trace  14.3 
Absent  57.1,  trace  23.8 

[i6] 


Sullivan — Samoan  Somatology 


95 


Table  XLII.     Anthropometric  Characters 


MALE  67  TO  70  PERSONS  FEMALE  20  TO  23  PERSONS 

Character  Average  E.  S.D.        v.  in  %    Average  E.  S.D.        V.  in  % 

Stature   (cm.)   171.7  .63  5.25  3.05  161.2  1.02  4.92  3.05 

Head  lenj^^th  (mm.)  190.6  .69  5.69  2.98  183.0  1.08  5.22  2.85 

Head  width  154.8  .54  4.46  2.88  148.1  .80  3.87  2.61 

Miniimini  frontal  diameter 103.4  .72  5.98  5.78  101.5  .82  3.96  3.90 

Maximum  face  width  145.9  .63  5.23  3.59  136.5  .79  3.79  2.77 

Bigonial  diameter  104.6  .62  5.13  4.90  99.0  .82  3.93  3.96 

Anatomical  face  height  131.1  .79  6.56  5.00  121.1  1.33  6.41  5.30 

Nose  height  59.8  .43  3.64  6.09  54.3  .94  4.53  8.34 

Nose  width 43.8  .31  2.59  5.91  41.2  .90  2.56  6.21 

Ear  height  66.1  .50  4.23  6.39  61.2  .69  Z.2,2,  5.44 

Ear  width  35.2  .33  2.76  7.84  33.6  .48  2.30  6.84 

CephaHc  index  81.3  .42  3.53  4.34  80.8  .62  2.98  3.68 

Fronto-parietal  index  66.8  .40  3.30  4.94  68.8  .65  3.12  4.54 

Cepiialo- facial  index  94.2  .34  2.84  3.01  92.4  .54  2.63  2.84 

Jugo-mandibular  index  71.7  .46  3.84  5.42  72.5  .72,  3.50  4.83 

Jugo-frontal  index  70.9  .43  3.55  5.01  74.5  .69  3.34  4.49 

Anatomical  face  index  89.9  .59  4.87  5.42  89.8  1.05  5.03  5.60 

Nasal  index  73.6  .70  5.86  7.96  76.3  1.66  7.99  10.47 

Physiognomic  ear  index  53.3  .46  3.79  7.11  54.9  .94  4.53  8.25 

DISCUSSION 

The  results  speak  for  themselves  and  need  little  discussion.  Attention 
should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  the  average  anatomical  face  height  and  the  average 
nasal  height  as  given  in  these  tables  stand  very  high  in  the  total  range  for  these 
two  measurements.  In  fact  they  are  among  the  very  highest  values  so  far  recorded. 
As  we  have  no  comparative  data  on  this  matter  and  as  these  two  dimensions  are  diffi- 
cult to  take,  the  results  should  be  regarded  as  merely  tentative.  While  it  is  obvious 
that  the  Polynesians  have  massive  faces,  it  is  not  so  obvious  that  they  exceed  all  other 
peoples  in  these  measurements.  Although  I  have  every  confidence  in  the  accuracy 
of  these  measurements  as  a  whole,  I  am  convinced  from  my  own  experience 
that  when  dealing  with  anatomical  face  height  and  nasal  height  a  generous  allow- 
ance must  be  made  for  individual  differences  in  technique.  The  nasion  is  particu- 
larly hard  to  locate  if  the  nasal  bridge  is  low.  As  the  amount  of  fleshy  tissue  on 
the  chin  varies  considerably  in  different  persons,  the  same  degree  of  pressure  may 
yield  quite  different  results.  Furthermore  when  taking  face  height  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  be  sure  that  the  teeth  are  in  proper  occlusion,  for  even  when  the  mouth 
is  closed  and  the  lips  together,  the  teeth  are  not  necessarily  in  occlusion.  The  non- 
occlusion  of  the  teeth  adds  from  4  to  8  millimeters  to  the  anatomical  face  height. 
While  the  probabilities  are  that  these  two  measurements  were  properly  taken, 
attention  is  called  to  these  chances  for  mismeasurement. 

As  previously  mentioned  comparative  data  from  Samoa  is  practically  non- 
existent. Deniker,  on  the  basis  of  25  male  Samoans,  gives  the  average  stature  as 
172.6  centimeters  or  slightly  greater  than  our  average  of  171.7.  His  cephalic 
index  is  also  somewhat  higher — 82.7  as  compared  with  our  81.2.  Our  average  is 
much  lower  than  others  previously  recorded   for  this  area.     Deniker  gives   the 

[17] 


96  Memoirs  Bernice  P.  Bishop  Museum 

Tongan  average  as  82.6,  Tahitian  average  85.5,  Marquesan  average  85.5.  Our 
average  for  the  nasal  index  is  very  much  lower  than  that  of  Collignon  for  Poly- 
nesians in  general  (73.6  and  89.8),  but  the  discrepancy  is  probably  due  to  a  differ- 
ent technique. 

Our  series  is  noteworthy  for  its  homogeneity.  Taken  character  for  char- 
acter the  variability  is  very  small.  As  compared  with  a  series  of  pure  Sioux 
Indians  and  another  series  of  Sioux-White  half-bloods,  the  coefficient  of  variation 
for  nearly  every  character  is  appreciably  smaller  than  that  of  either  of  these 
groups. 

Table  XLIII.    Coefficient  of  Variation — Males  Only 

Samoan  Sioux  Sioux 

Pure  Pure        Half-bloods 

Stature  3.05  3.27  3.92 

Head  length  2.98  3.16  2.72 

Head  width  2.88  3.47  3.20 

Face  width  3.59  3.65  3.83 

Face  height  5.00  5.12  5.23 

Nasal  height 6.09  6.75  6.48 

Nasal  width 5.91  8.07  8.08 

Cephalic  index  4.34  4.03  3.33 

Cephalo-facial  index  •. 3.01  3.35  3.40 

Facial  index  5.42  5.78  6.22 

Nasal  index  7.96  10.25  10.23 

Considering  the  group  as  a  unit  there  seems  to  be  very  little  Melanesian 
blood  in  evidence.  On  the  basis  of  cultural  or  linguistic  evidence  it  is  common  to 
assume  a  large  amount  of  Melanesian  blood  in  all  Polynesian  groups.  If  such 
blood  exists  it  should  be  easily  demonstrable.  Melanesian  intermixture  should 
result  in  lower  stature,  longer  heads,  broader  noses,  shorter  ears,  more  curly, 
frizzly,  and  woolly  hair,  a  smaller  transverse  fronto-parietal  index,  a  lower,  nar- 
rower face,  greater  prognathism  and  a  heavier  development  of  the  glabella  and 
supra-orbital  region.  In  none  of  these  characters  does  this  Samoan  series  approach 
very  near  to  the  prevailing  Melanesian  type  or  types. 

As  to  the  general  affinities  of  the  Samoans,  it  seems  wiser  to  wait  for  more 
comparative  data  before  taking  any  definite  stand  as  to  their  relationships  to  other 
Polynesians  or  to  mankind  as  a  whole.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  becoming 
more  and  more  common  to  describe  the  Polynesians  as  of  European  racial  affini- 
ties, it  seems  desirable  to  keep  this  point  in  mind  in  summarizing  the  facts  brought 
out  by  the  material  from  Samoa  at  hand.  Frequently  a  single  character  is  chosen 
as  a  criterion,  but  there  is  nothing  in  our  available  somatological  data  to  warrant 
such  proceedure.  If  any  one  character  is  taken  as  a  criterion  and  the  classification 
carried  out  to  the  logical  end  on  that  basis,  the  results  are  ludicrous.  More  often 
than  not  it  is  naively  assumed  that  nature  has  kindly  provided  us  with  absolute 
criteria  of  race.  Some  rely  on  hair  form,  some  on  nose  form,  while  others  prefer 
head  form  or  skin  color.  Granting  that  all  of  these  characters  are  valuable  in 
their  proper  sphere,  it  is  useless  and  futile  to  argue  as  to  which  is  the  most  reliable 
test.  While  hair  form  might  work  admirably  as  a  basis  of  classification  for  the 
greater  part  of  mankind,  it  would  just  as  probably  lead  astray  if  used  inflexibly. 

[18] 


Sullivan — Sanioan  Somatology  97 

For  i"he  present  it  seems  wiser  to  take  into  consideration  the  totality  of  characters 
available.  To  do  otherwise  is  to  assume  the  solution  of  our  problem  in  advance. 
Our  problem  is  not  "On  the  assumption  that  hair  form  is  an  absolute  test  of  race, 
to  what  race  does  the  Samoan  belong?"  but  rather,  "In  the  light  of  all  the  available 
facts  where  shall  we  place  the  Samoan  in  the  scale  of  mankind?" 

Where  we  place  him  will  also  vary  with  our  conception  of  the  relationships 
of  the  various  groups  of  mankind  to  one  another.  The  prevailing  classifications  of 
mankind  are  the  results  of  two  schools  of  workers.  One  school  is  engaged  in 
separating  manlcind  into  as  many  groups  as  possible,  and  the  other  in  attempting 
to  point  out  relationships  and  to  include  all  mankind  in  the  fewest  groups  possible. 
Since  the  same  material  is  necessary  to  accomplish  both  of  these  ends,  the  work  is 
equally  valuable.     In  the  end  we  shall  doubtless  concur  in  a  happy  medium. 

For  myself,  I  find  no  serious  difficulty  in  assigning  the  greater  proportion 
of  mankind  to  one  of  four  great  races :  the  European  or  white,  the  Mongoloid  or 
yellow-brown,  the  Negro,  and  the  Australian. 

With  this  conception  of  races  and  the  material  at  hand  as  a  basis  I  have 
attempted  to  analyze  the  somatological  characters  of  the  Samoans  and  to  designate 
the  race  to  which  each  character  pointed.  This  designation  of  race  does  not  mean 
that  I  believe  or  infer  that  the  particular  character  referred  to  has  had  such  an 
origin,  but  that,  considering,  the  range  of  each  character  for  mankind  as  a  whole, 
the  detail  in  question  most  nearly  approaches  the  average  of  the  race  designated. 
Naturally,  many  characters  which  vary  indiscriminately  from  race  to  race  and 
even  within  a  given  race  have  been  omitted.  In  this  list  are  included  stature, 
cephalic  index,  and  facial  index,  as  well  as  several  other  characters  on  which  we 
have  insufficient  data  or  knowledge  for  such  determinations.     The  list  follows : 

Table  XLIV.    Analysis  of  Samoan  Characteristics 
Racial  Character  Affinities 

Skin  color  Mongoloid 

Hair  texture  European 

Hair   form   European 

Hair  color  Mongoloid-European 

Eye  color  Mongoloid 

Conjunctiva   Mongoloid-Negroid 

Amount  of  beard  Mongoloid 

Hair  on  chest Mongoloid 

Hair  on  arms  European-Mongoloid 

Hair  on  legs  European-Mongoloid 

Absence  of  eye  fold  European 

Nasal  bridge   Mongoloid-European 

Nostrils  Mongoloid-Negroid 

Lips  Mongoloid 

Prognathism European 

Incisor  teeth  European 

Face  width  Mongoloid 

Bigonial  diameter  : Mongoloid 

Jugo-frontal  index  Mongoloid-European 

Cephalo-facial  index  Mongoloid 

Nasal  index  Mongoloid 

Ear  height  Mongoloid 

Chin Mongoloid 

Total  Mongoloid  11 

European    5 

Mongoloid-European   5 

Mongoloid-Negroid    2 

[19I 


98  Memoirs  Bernice  P.  Bishop  Museum 

On  the  basis  of  this  Hst  I  am  inchned  to  regard  the  Samoans  as  most  closely 
allied  to  the  Mongoloid  race  of  mankind,  and  to  assume  that  the  differences  are 
probably  due  either  to  a  slightly. dififerent  evolution  since  the  time  of  their  separa- 
tion and  isolation  from  the  parental  stock,  or  to  the  retention  in  the  Samoans  of  a 
primitive  character  which  through  different  evolutionary  processes  has  been  lost 
in  most  of  the  Mongoloid  types.  I  think  it  unlikely  that  the  differences  are  due 
to  racial  intermixture.  Take  the  single  character  of  hair  form  for  an  example. 
When  we  think  of  Mongoloid  hair,  we  invariably  think  of  stiff,  coarse,  black  hair, 
though  as  a  matter  of  fact  such  hair  is  one  extreme  of  the  variation  of  hair  form 
in  man  and  most  probably  an  end  form  in  evolution.  It  seems  more  probable  that 
the  primitive  hair  form  in  man  was  at  least  slightly  wavy,  and  that  woolly  and 
spiral  hair  present  one  end  of  an  extreme  specialization,  and  the  coarse,  stiff, 
straight  hair  the  other  end. 

Another  outstanding  difference  between  the  Samoans  and  Mongols  in 
general  is  the  low  frequency  of  the  shovel-shaped  upper  incisor  tooth.  On  the 
other  hand  it  seems  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  Polynesians  at  one  time  had 
this  primitive  Mongoloid  characteristic  and  have  lost  it  in  part  in  their  recent  evo- 
lutionary history.  The  incisor  teeth  in  this  group  have  paralleled  the  tendency  of 
the  incisor  teeth  in  European  man  and  have  become  smaller  in  size.  The  absence 
of  this  incisor  fold  is  due  to  a  tendency  in  mankind  to  a  reduction  in  dentition 
and  is  not  the  result  of  racial  intermixure.  My  observation  leads  me  to  believe 
that  ihe  presence  of  this  character  is  not  one  to  disappear  in  mixed  peoples.  Cer- 
tainly a  fairly  high  percentage  of  the  part-Hawaiian  population  have  the  incisor 
fold  In  more  than  one  Mongol  group  this  characteristic  is  tending  to  disappear, 
if  that  can  be  inferred  from  lower  frequency. 

In  conclusion  we  may  say  at  least  that  it  is  far  more  difficult  to  reconcile 
European  racial  origin  for  the  Samoans  and  Polynesians  in  general,  than  it  is  to 
assume  Mongoloid  affinities  and  origins. 

Although  the  results  of  the  present  discussion  must  be  considered  as  some- 
what tentative  because  of  the  small  amount  of  available  data,  it  is  nevertheless 
time  that  anthropologists  should  discontinue  the  practise  of  speaking  vaguely  of 
European  origins  for  the  Polynesians  and  begin  to  cite  the  specific  characteristics 
that  lead  to  their  conclusions.  Likewise  there  seems  to  be  little  benefit  in  referrin 
to  Melanesian  admixture,  unless  we  point  out  specifically  and  statistically  those 
characters  which  point  in  this  direction.  It  is  not  fair  to  assume  that  the  facts 
upon  which  one's  opinions  are  based  are  generally  known.  Scientists  who  have 
the  privilege  of  working  in  inaccessible  localities  owe  it  to  their  colleagues  to  be 
as  specific  as  possible  in  giving  the  reasons   for  their  generalizations. 


f3 


[20] 


z 

w 

o 
z 

< 
o 

tn 


'J   a: 
^  9 


~  OS 

2  ° 

.  z 

z  < 


z 

..  < 


Z    lO 


Z    D 


z  -~^ 


3C     *^ 


c 

(15 


O 
it! 

o 

J2 


b/0 

o 


Pi 


7. 

d 


n 
I 

.J 

u. 
a 


oq 


c 


u 

he 
O 

o 

Oh 


I/) 

z 

< 

o 
< 


I 


<n 

< 

o 

■< 

1/1 


QQ 


o. 

n) 

la 

be 
O 
o 

JS 


< 
o 

< 
(/I 


m 

a 

lb 

u 
< 

03 


c 


o 
O 

J3 


a. 
« 

o 


Ph 


d 


a 
I 

w 
< 


o 

s 


o 


J 


pq 


•a 

c 


O 

o 


J3 

at 
ii 

bo 
o 
o 


6 


< 


< 

i  ° 


5^ 


D 
X 


IS 

•O 

c 

hi 

o 


J3 

O 

JS 


z 

6 


Q 
O 
O 

J 

n 
I 

a 
D 


•S4 
< 

s 


••1 


7  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

At^THROPOLOGY  LIBRARY 

This  publication  is  due  on  the  LAST  DATE 
stamped  below. 


I  AUG  3 1  '62  -7 
FEB? — mf- 


PEC 1 0  mo 


APR  1  2  Z002 


RB  17-60m-8,'61 
(01641810)4188 


General  Library 

Uaivenity  of  California 

Berkeler 


"m 


